We indeed recognize the כ kaph as being but a ח hheth resting on its side.Saro Fedele writes
that 'hheth' and 'kaph' were (sometimes) swapped each other
Otherwise, the root כרב is difficult. Are the כרוּבים קרוֹבים?
Isaac Fried, Boston University
We indeed recognize the כ kaph as being but a ח hheth resting on its side.Saro Fedele writes
that 'hheth' and 'kaph' were (sometimes) swapped each other
There is no need להרחיק נדוֹד to "Akkadian" for this. There are plenty of examples in Hebrew for ג-ה-ח-כ-ק "interchanges" made to slightly shift the meaning of a new root.Saro Fedele says
in Akkadian there was a swapping between 'kaph' and 'koph'.
I know neither how Paul D. Wegner nor Emanuel Tov define “eclectic”, all I know is the common English meaning of the term, which in this context sounds like taking things out of context or making up ad hoc interpretations as one goes along.Saro Fedele wrote:You said:Perhaps my wobbly English wasn't enough correct to explain well this linguistical term. In any case (I hope I'm using this expression correctly, now!), there are two basic modes of approaching to a TaNaKh translation: 'diplomatic' and 'eclectic'. Instead to let my head to spin to the purpose of explain you these terms I prefer to indicate you a couple of references in good English: (1) A Student's Guide to Textual Criticism of the Bible, by Paul D. Wegner (2006), sections 4.10-4.11; (2) Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible, by Emanuel Tov (2012), see - on the inside of the index - the entries 'editions' > 'Hebrew Scripture' > 'diplomatic' [...] 'eclectic'. For my viewpoint, the eclectic mode is the better way to approaching to a TaNaKh translation (like I'm performing in a Genesis translation)."I’m not sure what you mean by this, especially by your use of 'eclectic mode'."
This assumption is often wrong, because there are homonyms where words have different roots but the same pronunciation. In Hebrew, there are also homographs where, because Biblical Hebrew didn’t indicate vowel pronunciations, the same consonants are used for words from different roots.Saro Fedele wrote:You said:From the same place you get your understanding about the concept that, like you said, "[the term 'desolation'] most likely had a different pronunciation than 'sword'", that is, Logic. Yes, just like it is only logical to conclude that two terms linked by a common root had different pronunciations (so we can distinguish one or another derivatives),"Where did they get their understandings?"
Nope. See above. In the one example you give, it can be shown that they don’t even possess superimposed semantic areas.Saro Fedele wrote:in the same manner it is only logical to conclude that two verbs which possess superimposable semantic areas, along with 2 radicals out of 3 in common, can be considered homosemantic terms.
Citing scholars only cites their opinions. Their opinions may be wrong. When I ask for evidence, I look for examples in Hebrew that show the same pattern. A single example is not enough, especially when that single example can be understood differently. What you need to show are a few examples, in Hebrew, where there’s no question that your pattern is observed. You haven’t done that.Saro Fedele wrote:You said:Sorry, but now I'm not quite with you. I've yet mentioned the scholarly comments of Davies and Fuerst that assign the same meaning to both roots. Now, if you don't go along with them you have every right to do so, but this doesn't mean that I haven't presented a 'demonstration'. Instead, this indicates that I have presented a 'demonstration' that you are free to agree with or not."You haven’t shown by good evidence that they had a common meaning."
You mentioned also the necessity - for my part - to show a 'pattern'. I have no need to demonstrate any pattern. My purpose was to demonstrate that it was possible - in the past - that 'hheth' and 'kaph' were (sometimes) swapped each other. And for this goal, also one example - like that I cited - is fully enough (moreover, why you ask for 2 or 3 examples? Aren't 4, 5, 10, 350 examples better? Are you established a minimum amount of this kind of examples, to consider they are 'enough'?).
This single example I've cited demonstrates, adequately, that a swapping of this kind was possible and that it occurred, actually.
The reason the verse doesn’t make sense is because of the traditional translation. What I show is that the traditional translation is not necessary, nor correct, and by presenting other options that are possible in the Hebrew text, we get a meaning that doesn’t require changing a single letter.Saro Fedele wrote:You said:If we may get "a perfectly good understanding of the verse can be made without changing a letter" why readers/scholars (among them our user Steve Miller) think the stich does not 'make sense'? If we are discussing on Job 40:19 is because the B19 (or, another Bible Hebrew net-of-diacritical-points text, also) doesn't offer us enough information to give a number of us a persuasive understanding."At the same time, a perfectly good understanding of the verse can be made without changing a letter. All is needed is to consider all the possibilities available in the consonantal text."
Saro Fedele
Sorry, but your ‘common’ definition of this term is odd.‘I know neither how Paul D. Wegner nor Emanuel Tov define “eclectic”, all I know is the common English meaning of the term, which in this context sounds like taking things out of context or making up ad hoc interpretations as one goes along.’
Also if this is the case, ‘often’ isn’t ‘always’, as you know.‘This assumption [to conclude that two terms linked by a common root had different pronunciations] is often wrong.’
The word “eclectic” was imported into English from Greek and retains its Greek meaning. It means “choosing out”. In practice, that’s choosing a little from here and a little from there, and ignoring some from here and some from there, the end result can be a real mishmash that doesn’t mean much.Saro Fedele wrote:You say:Sorry, but your ‘common’ definition of this term is odd.‘I know neither how Paul D. Wegner nor Emanuel Tov define “eclectic”, all I know is the common English meaning of the term, which in this context sounds like taking things out of context or making up ad hoc interpretations as one goes along.’
What I keep saying over and over again, is that you haven’t demonstrated one clear example of your particular pattern as having happened even once. The one example that you present can be claimed as a misunderstanding of the verse. That’s why I asked for more examples that are unassailable. That you refuse to present any clear examples of your claimed pattern, is evidence that that pattern doesn’t exist.Saro Fedele wrote: You say:Also if this is the case, ‘often’ isn’t ‘always’, as you know.‘This assumption [to conclude that two terms linked by a common root had different pronunciations] is often wrong.’
I rely (and a lot of people along with me) on the truth of the simple following life-‘law’, ‘If a thing is yet happened (even if only once), it can happens again’.